View Single Post
Old 05-04-2013, 01:18 PM   #29
Bernd Lehnen
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 140
Re: Source of the nameing conventions.

Dave de Vos wrote: View Post
Isn't it just a matter of convention?

I'm an aikikai student.
Watching I and I would say that shomen uchi ikkajo osae ichi in yoshinkan is shomen uchi ikkyo omote in aikikai and shomen uchi ikkajo osae ni in yoshinkan is shomen uchi ikkyo ura in aikikai.

To me it seems that shomen uchi (forehead strike) is the attack and the defense (elbow lock) is called ikkajo osae in yoshinkan and ikkyo in aikikai. Omote and ura are positioning variations meaning "the front" and "the back" (of the attacker).

In my experience, technique in aikikai usually refers to what the defender does (ikkyo omote, or just ikkyo). One of my teachers regularly states that aikido has only a small numbers of techniques. But in some contexts, technique refers to the combination of attack and defense (like shomen uchi ikkyo omote), on a list of test requirements for example.

So perhaps what is commonly called a technique in aikikai, might be called a series in yoshinkan. I've never heard about series in aikikai.
What Dave de Vos said.

But why is this so important at all?

If I made it up all myself, I'd say ikkyo is the first principle, shown with the technique ude osae, working against any thinkable attack, like for example shomen uchi , which in itself is a principle of attack. Omote and ura were not to be confounded with irimi and tenkan. Omote, i'd say is in front of the eyes of uke and at the same time has the meaning of what is obvious and shown , whereas ura is in the back of uke or what isn't obvious or hidden and not overtly shown.
Then you can follow up doing alike with the second principle, nikkyo, shown with the technique kote mawashi, the third principle, sankyo, shown with kote hineri and so on and on....
Of course, I simply made it up, right now. Does it really matter?

  Reply With Quote